The FTC has a telemarketing sales rule which requires do not call telemarketer compliance
The Federal Trade Commission protects consumers not telemarketing companies
National Do Not Call Registry and List Compliance News
DO NOT CALL STATE & FEDERAL REGULATORY NEWS

This newsletter (or material) is prepared by Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, (816) 472-9000, http://copilevitz-canter.com/, braney@cckc-law.com. Copilevitz and Canter, LLC, does not provide legal services to Do Not Call Compliance or donotcallcompliance.com and does not endorse our website or services. This information is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.
 
2021 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2020 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2019 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2018 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2016 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2015 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2013 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2012 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2011 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2010 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2009 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
2008 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2007 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2006 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2005 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2004 Newsletters
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
State Do Not Call
 

September 2007 - Call Compliance News

Federal

FCC
The FCC has requested comments regarding the paperwork and compliance burden imposed by its rules implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Comments are due on or before October 9, 2007.

The FCC has made the same request with regard to its regulations implementing CAN-SPAM and the forms are easiest to accept complaints under the TCPA and CAN-SPAM regulations.

State

California
A California appellate court has ruled that an insurance company did not violate the TCPA when it sent faxes to a business which had purchased health insurance from the company in the past.  The court ruled that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act allowed the calls and the calls did not violate state consumer protection laws either.

The California Senate has passed a bill (AB 779) which would require notice to customers when credit card or debit card information is lost.  It also requires retailers to assume all costs of consumer notification and card replacement.  The bill now goes back to the state assembly for ratification.

A California federal court has refused to hear a TCPA case holding that it would properly be heard only in state court.  (Boydston v. Asset Acceptance, LLC).  The court also ruled that there is no private cause of action under the TCPA for technical procedural violations.  Most private plaintiffs include numerous allegations of such procedural violations to increase the worth of their claims.

Colorado
An appellate court has ruled that a residential telephone subscriber who advertised and used the number for both personal and business reasons could sign onto Colorado’s “do-not-call” list.  Holcomb v. Steven D. Smith, 2007 Colorado App. Lexis 1751 (September 6, 2007).  This case is quite problematic because the protections of “do-not-call” lists are based on protection of privacy interests.  Businesses do not have privacy interests and application of a “do-not-call” list to a business likely would cause a question to arise regarding the requirement’s constitutionality. Courts do not apply the protections of the Constitution based on labels (e.g. “residential” or “business” telephone line) rather on the actual use or speech involved (i.e. business speech is involved here, not residential privacy).

Illinois
An Illinois appellate court overturned a trial court which had previously dismissed a TCPA claim by a mortgage company against a bank.  The court ruled that an Illinois law required TCPA claims to be heard in state court.

 
Indiana
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a federal court should not have heard a challenge to the State of Indiana’s rules on prerecorded telephone calls.  The case will be heard in state court, for it seems unlikely the plaintiff will be successful in claiming that state law should be preempted by federal restrictions allowing some prerecorded calls.

Louisiana
A Louisiana appellate court has ruled that a plaintiff could sue a sender of unsolicited telephone facsimile messages in a class action.  The appellate court ruled that even if the plaintiff had an established business relationship with the sender, the class action still could be maintained.

Massachusetts
Massachusetts House Bill 3846, which would have required written consumer consent for all telephone transactions, died in committee and was not voted on by the full state legislature.

Ohio
The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that an attorney who received an unsolicited fax could not maintain a cause of action for failure to include identifying information or other violations of regulation other than receipt of the fax itself.  Often plaintiffs attempt to add allegations of these sorts of violations to TCPA claims multiplying by many times the amount of damages provided by Congress ($500 per fax).

New York
A New York federal court has dismissed a class action filed under the TCPA for unsolicited faxes ruling that a claim needed to be filed in state court.

Pennsylvania
A Pennsylvania court has allowed a TCPA case alleging illegal prerecorded messages to continue against an insurance company.  The insurance company argued that the calls were exempt from the TCPA because they conducted a survey on behalf of a tax exempt organization.  The court found that the call actually was intended to result in the sale of goods or services.  The court found the exemption for calls made by or on behalf of a tax exempt nonprofit organization applied only to calls made to further the objectives of a tax exempt nonprofit organization.  This is one of the first cases to affirm the FCC’s previous statements that “surveys” which are actually intended to generate sales are not exempt from the TCPA rules.  While actual surveys likely would be exempt, a “survey” intended to generate sales or leads is not “unsolicited advertisement” and is subject to the prerecorded calling rules.  Those calls would only be allowed with an established business relationship or other exemption.

A bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania House (HB 1234) which would change the state “do-not-call” list requirement to adopt the federal five year expiration period for “do-not-call” requests.  The bill would also allow businesses to remove numbers from the list if the number is no longer valid for that residential or wireless telephone subscriber.  The FTC and FCC likely would adopt the same “scrubbing” procedures for the national list, i.e. removing numbers from the list when they have been disconnected or transferred to another provider, although some analysis of the list has shown errors in this respect.

Congressman Mike Doyle is going to introduce legislation to the U.S. Congress removing the five year expiration period for numbers on the national “do-not-call” list.  The bill has not yet been introduced but the FTC has issued guidance supporting the current 5 year expiration period. This bill could get coverage in an election year and you likely should contact your representative to oppose this measure if your business is affected by the national do not call list.

Virginia
A Virginia court has ruled that an insurance company was required to provide coverage for a business facing a class action for sending unsolicited faxes.
Other

India
The country of India has implemented a “do-not-call” directive creating a national “do-not-call” database.

The authors make every attempt to provide current, accurate information, but Telemarketing ConnectionS® is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel, and readers should not use it in lieu of obtaining knowledgeable legal, or other professional, counsel expert in the field of commercial telemarketing law. References in Telemarketing ConnectionS® do not constitute endorsement by Copilevitz & Canter, L.L.C. or Telemarketing ConnectionS®. January 1, 2005, Copilevitz & Canter, L.L.C.
 
  Telemarketing Do Not Call Compliance - Avoid large fines by staying compliant.   NDNCR and SDNCR - National Do Not Call Registry and State Do Not Call Registry - Know the difference.
The Do Not Call Compliance Silver Plan offers an Automated federal and state do not call compliance solution. Scrub your list yourself using our automated list scrubbing system.
Telemarketing companies are required to enroll in the Federal Do Not Call Registry.
Do Not Call Compliance.com has the robust software technology and computer power to properly remove (scrub) the Do Not Call numbers from your telemarketing lists.
The National Do Not Call Registry is a list of phone numbers from consumers who have indicated their preference to limit the telemarketing calls they receive.
This Site is designed for use with MSIE 7+,FF 3.5+, Chrome, Opera and other modern browsers.
A Broadband Internet Connection is recommended for uploading and downloading files.


Terms of Use | User Agreement | Privacy and Security Policy

© Copyright 2003-2021 Do Not Call Compliance - Telemarketing Do Not Call List Compliance Service.
All Rights Reserved. Information on this site is not to be used as a substitute for legal counsel.

Do Not Call Compliance | | 800-930-7252